House Co-mTnittee on tlicTl'istrict of Co\umb;a 



1R 



eport on H.Tl. Zl^22^ 



To provide for a Director of Eciu^cat 



ion 



arvd f"or oti 



n^T pu-r 



pu-rposes. 




HOUSE COMMinEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLCMBIA 



REPORT OF 



THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



ON 



H. R. 22922 



TO PROVIDE FOR A DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FOR A DIRECTOR OF 

CHARITIES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 



6 1st Congress, 2d Session 



PRINTED FOR USE OF THE COMMITTEE 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1910 






p,PR SO 1910 






COMMISSIONERS' REPORT ON H. R. 22922. 



Office Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 

Washington, March 30, 1910. 
Hon. S. W. Smith, 

Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, 

House of ^Representatives. 

Sir: The Commissioners of the District of Cokimbia have the honor 
to submit the following on H. R. 22922, Sixty-first Congress, second 
session, "To provide for a director of education for the District of 
Columbia and for a director of charities for the District of Columbia, 
and for other purposes," which you referred to them for examination 
and report: 

The object of the bill is to abolish the Board of Education of the 
District of Columbia, created by act of Congress approved June 20, 
1906, and to confer the powers and duties of said board upon a director 
of education to be appointed by the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia; and also to abolish the Board of Charities of the District 
of Columbia, created by act of Congress approved June 6, 1900, and to 
transfer the powers and duties of that board to a director of charities 
to be appointed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. 
The compensation of the director of education is fixed at $7,000 per 
annum and that of the director of charities at $5,000 per annum. The 
proposed change is to take effect July 1, 1910, and thereafter the con- 
trol over all matters of education and charities is to be vested in the 
Commissioners of the District of Columbia and placed under the 
direct supervision of the director of education and the director of 
charities, respectively. 

The subject-matter of this bill is of extreme importance and requires 
the most careful consideration. 

For the purpose of this report the commissioners will discuss, first, 
the matter of education, and, secondly, the matter of charities. 

EDUCATION, 

The present Board of Education of the District of Columbia was 
appointed under authority of section 2 of the act of Congress approved 
June 20, 1906, "An act^^to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, 
school officers, and other employees of the Board of Education of the 
District of Columbia." 

That act provided that the control of the public schools of the 
District of Columbia should be vested in a board of education to 
consist of nine members, all of whom should be bona fide residents 
of the District of Columbia for five years immediately preceding their 
appointment, and three of whom should be women. The act provided 

3 



4 COMMISSIONERS REPOET ON H. E. 22922. 

that the members of the Board of Education shoidd be appointed 
by the judo;es of the supreme court of the District of Cohimbia for 
terms of three years and that they should serve without compen- 
sation. A secretary to the board was provided for and the board 
was also authorized to appoint a superintendent of schools and two 
assistant superintendents of schools, together with other officers, 
teachers, janitors, and other employees. 

By the terms of the act it was made the duty of the Board of 
Education to determine all questions of general policy relating to the 
schools, to appoint the executive officers under the board, and to 
define their duties and to "direct expenditures" for school purposes. 

It was provided, however, that — 

All expenditures of public funds for such school purposes shall be made and 
accounted for as now provided by law under the direction and control of the Commis- 
sioners of the District of Columbia. 

Thus the law places the direction of expenditures for school pur- 
poses at once upon the Board of Education and upon the commis- 
sioners. 

The act provided that the Board of Education shoul^ submit 
annually to the commissioners estimates in detail of the amount of 
money required for public schools for the ensuing year. 

The act also provided for the appointment, promotion, transfer, 
and dismissal by the board of its subordinate officers and teachers, a 
provision being made that those employees coming under the classi- 
fication of directors, principals, heads of departments, teachers, and 
other subordinates of the superintendent of schools should not be 
appointed, promoted, transferred, or dismissed except upon the 
written recommendation of the superintendent of schools. The 
board was given power to remove the superintendent of schools at 
any time for adequate cause affecting his character and efficiency as 
superintendent. 

Prior to the act of June 20, 1906, above referred to, the Board of 
Education was a])pointed by the Commissioners of the District of 
Columbia under the authority of an act approved June 6, 1900, being 
the District appropriation bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901. 
By that act the commissioners were authorized to appoint seven 
persons whose term of office should be seven years and whose com- 
pensation should be $10 for each meeting, not to exceed for any 
member the sum of $500 per annum. This board had practically the 
same jurisdiction over the public schools as is now exercised by the 
present Board of Education and had the specific dut}^ of reporting to 
the commissioners annually "the sanitary and structural conditions 
of all buildings in use as well as those in course of construction, with 
recommendations as respects needed changes." 

This board, appointed by the commissioners, was the successor 
of the board of school trustees which was provided for in the organic 
act of the District of Columbia, approved June 11, 1878, which abol- 
ished the old board of school trustees appointed under the previous 
form of government of the District of Columbia and directed the 
appointment of 19 persons as trustees of public schools. This act 
of June 11, 1878, was amended by an act of Congress approved 
July 1, 1882, which reduced the number of the board of school trustees 
to 9 members. 



C0MMISSI02QEli,S' REPORT ON ii. R. 22U22. 5 

PRESENT BOARD OF EDUCATION. 

The present Board of Education consists, as heretofore stated, of 
i\ members, appointed by the judges of the supreme court of the 
District of Columbia. It has control of all cjuestions of general 
policy relating to schools, including matters of education. The 
expenditure of all public funds for school purposes is placed by law 
under the direction and control of the Commissioners of the District 
of Columbia, although the law is mconsistent or conflicting as above 
described, antl the commissioners prepare the estimates of appro- 
priations which' are annually submitted to Congress. 

It needs no argument to demonstrate the disadvantages of the 
existing divided jurisdiction and responsibility and the economy and 
efficiency that would result from placing the whole school adminis- 
tration under one head. 

The line of demarcation between the duties of the commissioners 
and those of the Board of Education is not sharply drawn, and this 
causes frequent conflict of jurisdiction and a consecpient occupation 
of time to adjust dift'erences of opinion regarding school matters with- 
out any resulting benefit to the District. In consequence, many 
things which are done are accomplished by compromise, in which 
often the best results are sacrificed. 

The conimissioners appreciate the voluntary public service that is 
being given by the present members of the Board of Education; but 
they believe that a more businesslike procedure would be to have the 
duties of this board performed by a high-class official, a director of 
education, possessed of broad executive experience and ability. 

The-^ commissioners believe that many economies could be effected 
under a different system of administration of educational matters. As 
an illustration, the commissioners wouM state that the Board of Edu- 
cation submitted to the commissioners estimates for the fiscal year 
1911 amounting to $4,722,140.50. In preparing their estimates the 
commissioners were required b}^ law to keep the total within an 
amount double the estimated revenues for the year. The estimates 
of the Board of Education seemed to the commissioners exceedingly 
large and out of proportion, considering the total means available and 
considering also the sums expended elsewhere for educational pur- 
poses. The commissioners thereupon called on the Board of Educa- 
tion to reduce its estimates, but was met with a refusal of the board 
so to reduce them, thus placing the duty on the commissioners to 
make the reductions, although unacquainted with the items that 
could be most advantageously reduced. 

The commissioners believe that the cost of the school system at the 
present time is unduly large, as would seem to be apparent if com- 
parison be made between expenditures for schools in the District 
of Columbia and elsewhere. 

A statement has recently been given out by a member of the Board 
of Education which might convey an entirely erroneous impression 
as to relative expenditures here and elsewhere. Tlie following is 
extracted from recent publications in the local press: 

"The cost of education in the District of Columbia is lower than the average cost 
in 158 other American citfes," declared W. V. Cox, vice-president of the Board of 
Education, at yesterday's meeting of that body. Mr. Cox spoke in reply to charges 
made in the House last Tuesday by Representative Peters, of Massachusetts, who 



6 COMMISSIOISrEES'' REPOET ON Hi K. 22922. 

accused the board of unbusinesslike methods, and offered a bill abolishing the board 
and creating in its stead a dii'ector of education. 

"The cost of education in the District of Columbia," said Mr. Cox, "when compared 
with the cost of other things in the municipal budget is not high — in fact, it is a little 
lower than the average relative cost of education in 158 cities in the United States. 



COST BELOW THE AVERAGE. 

Mr. Cox quoted advance sheets of Census Bureau bulletins showing that the total 
expense of maintaining the ordinary city departments and offices in 158 cities for 
the year 1907 was as follows: 

1. General government $43, 717, 379 

2. Protection of life and property 93, 293, 838 

3. Health, conservation, and sanitation 37, 338, 312 

4. Highways 44, 858, 464 

5. Charities and corrections 24, 710, 414 

6. Education 109, 919, 975 

7. Recreation 12, 098, 333 

8. Miscellaneous 5, 402, 709 

Total 371, 944, 424 

"The total amount expended fo reducation, " said Mr. Cox, in analyzing the figures 
"was $109,919,975; this was 29.5 per cent of all city expenditures. Now, compare 
this with the proportion of money allowed for education in the District of Columbia 
appropriation bill as it came from conference March 1, 1910. The total amount 
appropriated for all purposes in the District of Columbia (see conference report, p. 19) 
is $10,625,423.29. The total amount appropriated for schools is $2,998,960.60. The 
per cent of all expenses allowed for education in the District of Columbia is 28.2. 
The average per cent of all expenses allowed for education in 158 cities is 29.5. " 

Granting the accuracy of the figures quoted above, it is necessary 
to inquire as to whether they have been fairly employed, for anything 
can be proven with figures if they be handled judiciously. 

In the District of Columbia the taxes are in lieu of taxes paid else- 
where for state, county, and municipal purposes, including special 
assessments for street improvements, and the taxes in the District 
of Columbia are fairly comparable with the sum of such taxes in other 
communities. 

It would appear fair, therefore, if percentages be used, to ascertain 
what proportion expenditures for schools bear to all taxes collected 
within the various municipalities investigated, including the District 
of Columbia. 

Without having all the data at hand to indicate the cities used in 
making up the figures employed in the quotation above, yet a fair 
assumption may be made that the city taxes raised in those munici- 
palities should be increased by some 46 per cent to allow for state 
and county taxes and taxes for street improvements. Applying 
this reasonable assumption, it appears that, of all the taxes raised 
in those municipalities, but 20.2 per cent was used for educational 
purposes. 

In the District of Columbia it may or it may not be fair to subtract 
from the total revenues the contribution of the United States before 
ascertaining the percentage. If that contribution be subtracted, the 
percentage becomes about 56.4; if it be not subtracted, the percentage 
remains about 28.2. But it is true beyond cavil that in the District 
of Columbia considerably over 50 per cent of ajl taxes localh' raised 
are being expended for schools, while in other communities only 
about 20 per cent are being so expended. 



COMMISSIONERS REPORT ON H. R. 22922. 7 

It occurs to the commissioners, however, that the fairest basis of 
comparison is by rehitive costs per pupil per annum. In Washington 
tliat cost was $54.75 in 1910, an increase of $2.98 in one year. 

According to the most recently published figures of the Census 
Bureau, the cost of education per pupil per annum in other cities of 
size comparable with Washington averages $29.65. 

The facts are as shown in the following table, wherein the number of 
pupils where not definitely ascertained is obtained by dividing the 
population by 6.56, as is known to be fair. 



Year. 


City. 


Popula- 
tion. 


Number 
of pupils. 


Total cost or 
schools. 


Cost per 
pupil. 


1910 


Washington 


343,003 
553,669 
460,327 
381,819 
375,082 
360, 290 
353,535 
345,230 
317,903 
314,146 
289,634 
273,825 
237,952 
226, 129 


55,500 
80,235 
' 69,512 
58,204 
57,176 
54,922 
53,892 
52, 626 
48,460 
47,886 
44,151 
41,741 
36,273 
34, 470 


$3,038,660.00 

2,212,564.00 

2,545,873.00 

1,643,459. (X) 

2,126,831.00 

1,255,360.00 

1,662,973.00 

1,696,715.00 

1.382,144.00 

768,965.00 

2,138,746.00 

1,260,593.00 

983,751.00 

687.083.00 


?54. 75 


1907 


Baltimore 


27.58 


1907 


Cleveland 


36. 62 


1907 


Buffalo 


28. 23 


1907 


Pittsburg 


37. 19 


1907 


San Francisco 


22.86 


1907 


Detroit 


30.86 


1907 


Cincinnati 

Milwaukee 


32. 24 


1907 


28. 52 


1907 


New Orleans 


16.06 


1907 




48.44 


1907 


Minneapolis 


30.20 


1907 


Jersey City, N. J 

Louisville", Ky 


27.12 


1907 


19.93 







CHARITIES. 



As previously stated, it is proposed by the bill to abolish the Board 
of Charities, created by act of Congress approved June 6, 1900, and 
to transfer the powers and duties of that board to a director of char- 
ities to be appointed by the commissioners. 

By the act of Congress of June 6, 1900, a Board of Charities was 
authorized, to consist of five members, residents of the District of 
Columbia, to be appointed by the President of the United States, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of three 
years. The members of said board serve without compensation. 
The board was authorized to appoint a secretary at a salary of $3,000 
per annum and other subordinate officers and employees. 

Previous to the organization of this board, the matter of charities 
had been under the control of a superintendent of charities appointed 
by the President of the United States by and with the advice and con- 
sent of the Senate under authority of an act of Congress, approved 
August 6, 1890, and this superintendent received a compensation of 
$3,000 per annum. 

The purposes of the law providing for the superintendent were to 
secure "a more equitable and efficient expenditure of the several 
sums appropriated for charities." 

Previous to that time there had been no methodical supervision of 
charities and the appropriations made to the various charitable insti- 
tutions were expended by them without such supervision. 

The duty of this superintendent, as laid down in the law. included 
the formulation of a plan or system for expenditures for charities in 
the District in such manner, by consolidation, combination, or other 
direction, as best to secure the ends contemplated by the several 
institutions and associations for which appropriations were made, 



8 commissioners" EEPOET on H. E. 22922. 

with the least mterference, each with the other, or misappHcation of 
effort or expenditure, and without dupHcatibn of charitable work or 
expenditure. It was provided that all such appropriations should be 
expended under the general direction of the superintendent in con- 
formity with such a system or plan subject to the approval of the 
Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. It was also 
made the duty of the superintendent to make an examination into the 
charitable institutions and to recommend such changes and modifica- 
tions as would promote economy, efliciency, and best secure highest 
results in the administration of charities. This superintendent was 
recjuired to report in detail to the commissioners and the commis- 
sioners were recpiired to submit such report with their estimates for 
appropriations. 

Previous to this legislation the several charitable institutions which 
received appropriations were required to report to the commissioners, 
in detail, an account of the receipts and expenditures and all their 
operations, which report the commissioners were required to transmit 
to Congress with such suggestions and recommendations as they 
might deem pertinent. 

The act of June 6, 1900, authorizing the present Board of Charities, 
abolished the oflice of superintendent of charities and placed upon 
the Board of Charities the visitation, inspection, and general super- 
vision over the charitable institutions, societies, and associations, 
including those of a correctional or reformator}" character, which 
were supported in whole or in part by appropriations by Congress, 
The board was authorized to establish rules, and no payment was 
to be made to any such institution which did not conform to such 
rules. The board was required to meet at least once a month, and 
the officers of each charitable institution subject to its supervision 
were recfuired to furnish to the board such statistics and information 
as it might desire. The board was authorized to prescribe forms of 
reports, to pass upon plans for all new institutions, to make an annual 
report to Congress through the commissioners, and to include in its 
annual report estimates of appropriations. 

In the act the Commissioners of the District of Columbia were 
authorized to order an investigation by the board of the management 
of any institution, and the act required that all accounts and expendi- 
tures of the board should be certified in such manner as required 
by the commissioners and paid as other accounts against the District 
of Colunibi,a. 

The same argument hereinbefore made as to economy of adminis- 
tration in the handling of educational matters that would result from 
the substitution of a director of education for a Board of Education 
would with equal force apply to the administration of charities. 
The commissioners believe that these important functions of the Dis- 
trict government should be treated and handled as business proposi- 
tions, which involves a centralization of responsibility and authority. 

The commissioners appreciate the voluntary public service ren- 
dered by members of the Board of Charities, and they think it has 
been of great benefit to the District of Columbia. At the same time 
they believe that the administrative duties and executive control of 
charities and correctional matters could with advantage to the public 
service be transferred to a single executive who would report directly 



COMMISSIOXEKS REPORT ON H. R. 22922. 9 

to the commissioners. The Boanl of Commissioners is the executive 
authority of tlie District of CoUimhia, and the commissioners heheve 
that the control of the expenihture of all appropriations made by 
Congress for any purpose of the District of Columbia should be vested 
in them. In no other waj^ can there be a proper coordination among 
the various functions of municipal government. 

CONCLUSION. 

The purposes of the bill under consideration are, therefore, believed 
by the commissioners to be wise and in the interest of efficient and 
economical administration. They further beheve that the bill is 
worded so as to accomplish the end desired. 

The bill has been carefully drafted so as not to interfere with the 
present organization of the school system qx of charities, except to 
provide for each a proper executive head. The board of education 
is now appointed by the judges of the supreme court of the District 
of Columbia, and this extrajudicial and wholly executive function 
the commissioners believe should not be placed upon such a body. 
The board of charities is appointed by the President of the United 
States, but the commissioners believe that the control over local 
charities is a municipal function and should be exercised by the duly 
authorized municipal authorities of the District of Columbia. 

Neither the judges of the supreme court nor the President can be 
in such intimate touch with our municipal administration as to per- 
mit them to know to what extent their appointees are working in 
harmony with the commissioners in the matters under consideration, 
where the respective jurisdictions are so intermingled. The position 
in which the commissioners find themselves, with insufficient author- 
ity to coordinate the various municipal expenditures, although 
responsible for the estimates upon which District appropriations are 
made, seems to be difficult and illogical. 

For the reasons given above, the commissioners urge the passage 
of this bill. 

If there be some who believe in the special efficacy of boards to 
perform certain functions in connection with education and charities, 
it is suggested that the commissioners might be given authority to 
appoint advisory (not administrative) boards, whom the}' could 
charge with duties of visitation, inspection, and report. 

The commissioners inclose herewith a draft of a section to be 
added to the bill to provide for advisory boards, if Congress shall 
deem such boards necessary. 
Very respectfully, 

Board of Commissioners District of Columbia, 
By CuNO H. Rudolph, President. 



Section — . The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby authorized 
to appoint a Board of Education and a Board of Charities and Corrections, to consist 
of five persons each, to serve without compensation and for such terms as said com- 
missioners shall designate. 

The duties of the Board of Education shall be to advise the commissioners on all 
questions of general policy relating to the public schools of the District of Columbia, 
to inspect public schools and school buildings, to consider courses of study, to sug- 



10 commissioners' EEPOET on H. E. 22922. 

gest to the said commissioners desirable changes and improvements, and also to 
perform such other duties of an ad\isory nature as may be assigned to them by said 
commissioners. 

The duties of the Board of Charities and Corrections shall be to visit and inspect all 
institutions, societies, or associations of a charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or 
reformatory character which are supported, in whole or in part, by appropriations of 
Congress made for the care or treatment of residents of the District of Columbia and 
to ad\dse the said commissioners as to any improvements in methods in the care of 
patients, or in the expenditure of funds, or in methods of accounting for same as they 
may deem necessary in order more fully to carry out the objects of said appropria- 
tions, and also to give such additional advisory assistance to said commissioners as 
may be called for under such rules and regulations as the said commisisoners may 
prescribe. 

o 



